TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING 
APPLICATION FOR PATENT. 

y^ STATEMENT 

\ \ OF THE 

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 

ON 

H. R. 20036 



DECEMBER 16, 1914 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS 
Second Session 



^ '? COMMITTEE ON PATENTS. 

WILLIAM A. OLDFIELD, Arkansas, Chairman. 
MARTIN A. MORRISON, Indiana. WILLIAM KENNEDY, Connecticut. 

FRANK CLARK, Florida. HUNTER H. MOSS, Jr., West Virginia. 

JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, Missouri. AARON S. KREIDER, Pennsylvania. 

OSCAR CALLAWAY, Texas. FRANCIS O. LINDQUIST, Michigan. 

HERMAN A. METZ, New York. JOHN I. NOLAN, California. 

ROBERT P. HILL, Illinois. CALVIN D. PAIGE, Massachusetts. 

WOODSON R. OGLESBY, New York. 

Clarence E. Kay, Clerk. 
E. I. Hunt, Assistant Clerk. 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OPPIOB 

1S14 









'T 



D« of Do 
JAN 2 1916 



^^ 



o". 



^, 



•^ 



^ 



TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING APPLICATION 

FOR PATENT. 



Committee on Patents, 

House of Representatives, 

Wednesday^ December 16^ 191Jf. 
The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m. 

Present: Representatives Oldfield (chairman), Morrison, Calla- 
way, Hill, Moss, Kreider, and Lindquist. 
Present also : Hon. Thomas Ewing, Commissioner of Patents. 
The committee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of the 
bill H. R. 19642, which is as follows : 

A BILL To extend temporarily the time of filing applications for letters patent and 
registration in the Patent Office. 

Be it e7iacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, Tliat wlienever an applicant for letters 
patent or for the registration of a trade-mark or label is unable on account of 
the existing state of war to file an application or pay any official fee within the 
period now limited by law, then the Commissioner of Patents will, upon peti- 
tion, accept such application or fee within an additional period of nine months. 
This act shall be deemed efilective from the first day of August, nineteen hun- 
dred and fourteen. 

Sec. 2. That all letters patent and registrations to which the preceding sec- 
tion applies shall have the same force and effect as if the applications and fees 
had been filed in accordance with the existing laws. 

Sec. 3. That section one of this act shall remain in force until the first day 
of January, nineteen hundred and seventeen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS EWING, COMMISSIONER OF 

PATENTS. 

The Chairman. What does the bill provide, Mr. Commissioner? 

Commissioner Eaving. The bill provides for giving the appli- 
cants — mainly foreign applicants — an extension of nine months' 
time within which to file applications and pay fees for any purposes. 
Under the present act, section 4887, an applicant who has a patent 
abroad, or who has filed application for a patent abroad, may file 
here within one year of the date of the filing abroad and his patent 
will not be affected by his foreign patent. If, however, he files a 
day after the year and has already obtained a foreign patent, or ob- 
tains one before he obtains his patent here, his patent here is void. 
Then, in the course of the prosecution of applications in the office, 
there are fees that have to be paid after certain periods. 

The purpose of this bill is to give an extension of nine months 
generally for applications of patents, trade-marks, and labels, so that 
foreign applicants who were surprised by the outbreak of the war 
may have a chance to have their rights protected which would other- 
wise be lost. 

7.3.530—14 ^ •> 



4 FILING APPLICATION FOR PATENT. 

The Chairman. That is a war measure, then ? 

Commissioner Ewing. Yes; purely. 

Mr. Callaway. An emergency act? 

Commissioner Ewing. Yes; an emergency act. For example, in 
an application for a patent the application must be signed and sworn 
to by the inventor, and it is impossible to reach him if he is in the 
field. If he has been killed his administrator or executor may exe- 
cute it, and that takes time. It is to meet such emergencies that the 
bill is proposed. 

As soon as the war broke out I took such steps as I could within 
the authority of the commissioner to relieve applicants, and the 
German patent office and the English patent office also took steps. 
I laid before the German ambassador what we had done, and as a 
result of the general liberality of our law and, I think, partly of the 
steps I had taken to relieve the situation, the German office published 
a statement that citizens of the United States were entitled to all 
the benefits of the relief granted by the German office. I state this 
because when the bill was proposed I thought it was necessary in 
order to secure to our citizens the benefit of the rights which the 
German patent office had extended and which they stated would be 
only granted where reciprocal rights were granted; but our country 
has been specially published in the German official publication, so 
that we do not have to pass this law in order to get that benefit. 

The Chairman. As far as Germany is concerned? 

Commissioner Ewing. As far as Germany is concerned ; and there 
is no other country that I know of in which any rights would depend 
upon the passage of this bill. 

The Chairman. Then why pass it ? 

Commissioner Ewing. I am stating this because, as I say, at the 
time I prepared the bill I thought it was necessary. Now it is not 
necessary. The question, therefore, is purely one of the wisdom of 
meeting an extraordinary situation by an amendment to the act which 
will give to foreign applicants in this country exactly the same ad- 
vantage as the German office has given to us and to everybody else 
and which, I think, will be adopted generally throughout the coun- 
tries of the world. So far as my information goes, nothing has been 
done particularly along this line except in Germany. 

Now, my own feeling is that it is a wise and proper measure. If 
it were necessary to protect the rights of our citizens in Germany I 
should feel it was an extremely important measure to our citizens. 
But under the present circumstances and according to my present 
advices — because these things change from month to month — I can 
only present it as, in my judgment, a generally wise and proper 
measure. 

The Chairman. May I ask you a question ? In the first section I 
see you make it retroactive. 

Commissioner Ewing. Back to August 1. 

The Chairman. The beginning of the war ? 

Commissioner Ewing. Yes. 

The Chairman. I suppose there will be no trouble about that from 
the constitutional standpoint? 

Commissioner Ewing. No ; because no grant is made. 



FILING APPLICATION FOK PATENT. 5 

The Chairman. Section 3 says, " That section 1 of this act shall 
remain in force until the 1st day of January, 1917." Do you think it 
will be necessary to extend it that long? 

Commissioner Ewing. I think the war is likely to last all of 1916 ; 
and certainly the war conditions — that is, people getting back home 
and getting their business in shape, and all that. My fear is that we 
may have to ask a further extension, but I thought it was safe to put 
it at that. 

Mr. Moss. Before you leave the first part of the bill, would you 
mind answering a question or two? Do you consider that the 
language of the bill is clear? The author of the bill does not say 
that a foreign applicant may have an additional nine months, but 
*• an applicant for letters patent," etc. There are two or three ques- 
tions that suggest themselves to me in connection with that: First, 
whether it could be construed to apply to a domestic patent. 

Commissioner Ewing. Yes; if he could show that it was on ac- 
count of the existing state of Avar he could do it. For example, he 
might be caught over there himself. 

Mr. Moss. In that connection how is it to be — that he is an ap- 
plicant before he files his application? 

Commissioner Ewing. Well, his application is either accepted or 
rejected; that is, he does not get his patent unless he satisfies the 
condition. 

Mr. Moss. Yes; but how is it to be ascertained that nine months 
before he would have filed his application? 

Commissioner Ewing. Oh, that would have to be done here. I 
think it is within the discretion of the commissioner to decide in 
each case whether it is a proper case for relief or not. 

Mr. Moss. But speaking of the clearness of the language, it says: 
"Whenever an applicant is unable," etc. How are you to judge 
whether he was an applicant until he files his application ? 

Commissioner Ewing. Well, whenever a man who becomes an 
applicant by filing his application sets up that he has been unable to 
file it under the existing act because of the state of war, I may give 
him an extension of nine months. That is what that means, I think. 

Mr. Moss. That brings up this further question : What would you 
say, then, with reference to an American applicant filing his applica- 
tion for an identical patent with a foreigner who comes in eight 
months afterwards, where thev both apply for exactly the same 
thing? 

Commissioner Ewing. The foreigner would have the benefit of the 
international convention under this act, just as he has now, with nine 
months in addition to the time that is allowed him now. Under the 
international convention, which has spread pretty much over the 
world, the foreign applicant who has an application abroad may file 
here within one year, and he irets the benefit of his foreign applica- 
tion date against a native applicant who comes in within a year and 
who can not carry his work iDack over the foreign filing date. This 
will give him 21 months. 

Mr. Morrison. Mr. Commissioner, may I ask you whether in every 
case the question of who was the first inventor is not an open ques- 
tion, to be determined in that case by such evidence as is admissible 
in that case ? 



(3 FILING APPLICATION FOE PATENT. 

Commissioner Ewing. Yes; because the foreigner can only go 
back to his foreign filing date, whereas the American can go back 
indefinitely, so far as any work done in this country is concerned. 
The foreigner also can go back to any work that he did in this 
country, but as a practical matter the foreigner does his preliminary 
work abroad, and the American does his preliminary work here. So, 
while in theory we treat everybody exactly alike, in practice the 
work in this country is almost all done by citizens of this country, 
and it is the earliest date of work in this country that counts. 

Mr. Moss. The effect of this bill would be to give the foreigner 
nine months advantage over the American, both claiming the same 
patent ? 

Commissioner Ewing. Yes ; it would. 

Mr. Morrison. Let me ask a question: Suppose the American is 
able to prove that he is the first inventor 

Commissioner Ewing. Then the foreigner would not have the 
advantage. The point made by Mr. Moss is that under this act the 
foreigner may wait nine months longer than under the present act, 
but still go back to his original filing date abroad. That is the only 
advantage that it gives him. On the other hand, under the present 
law, if he does not file here v/ithin a year of the filing abroad, he can 
not go back to his original filing date, and furthermore if the foreign 
patent is issued first he loses that right. 

The Chairman. The foreigner and the American citizen both have 
to convince the commissioner that the delay has been on account of 
the war ? 

Commissioner Ewing. Yes. 

The Ciiairma::. They would stand on an equal footing there? 

Commissioner Ewing. They would stand on an equal footing there, 
except that I should probably have to accept an excuse from the for- 
eigner which I would riot accept from the American, because he 
would not be so likely to be affected. 

The Chairman. He might be over there and could not come home. 

Mr. Moss. Then, in the administration of this act, if the foreigner 
simply stated that he had intended to file his application before and 
could not do it on account of the war, would you permit that mere 
statement to entitle him to the benefit of the act? 

Commissioner Ewing. I think so, unless I had some reason to doubt 
it ; that is to say, if he were within the war zone 

Mr. Moss. The effect would be 

Commissioner Ewing. To extend it nine months. 

Mr. Moss. If you administer it that way, the effect of it Avould 
be to give him nine months* advantage over the American on what 
might be a totally false statement. 

Commissioner Ewing. Yes; that is true, but I think that statement 
would be operi to attack. I think that if in administering the law I 
were to be very strict on a point of that sort it would defeat the 
favorable impression that the law is intended to give. 

The Chairman. What effect has the war had on the filing of 
applications in your office? 

Commissioner' Ewing. For a time it cut oft' applications from 
abroad almost entirely. We were receiving about 5.000 a year. 

The Chairman. When the war started? 



FILING APPLICATION FOR PATENT. 7 

Commissioner Ewing. When the war started. Latterly the foreign 
applications are beginning to come in again. It has, however, cut 
off a considerable number of foreign applications. I should say 
probabl}^ it has cut the 5,000 down to perhaps 2,000. As to the 
general business, we will have as many applications filed altogether 
this year as last, and when the Americans get in full swing we will 
have more applications than ever. That is my impression. 

Mr. Moss. Mr. Commissioner, just one more question. Don't you 
think it would be better for this bill to say that whenever the ap- 
plicant convinces the commissioner by competent evidence under oath 
that he would have filed such an application, then this applies ? 

Commissioner Ewing. Well, I think that is merely a question of 
policy. I see no serious objection to either procedure, but I am not 
inclined to be as strict as you would indicate, because in the end we 
are merel}^ giving to a man w^ho was the first inventor the benefit of 
his date. We are assuming a case now as between an American and a 
foreigner. If the American can go back of the foreigner's date he 
would beat him anyhow. If he can not go back of the foreigner's 
date, this act merely gives to the real first iuA^entor the benefit of the 
date. 

Mr. Morrison. Now, let me ask you a question of law\ Suppose a 
foreigner wants to take out a patent here, and an American files ap- 
plication for the same thing, and shows an invention at a date later 
than the date of the issuance of the patent, or the filing of the Ger- 
man application. Would the American then be entitled to a patent? 

Commissioner Ewing. He would have to show an invention prior 
to the grant of the foreign patent, not prior to the date of filing. 

Now, when this situation broke on the v,-orld there were a large 
number of men who had applications from abroad in their hands to 
prepare, to send back to Europe for execution. They were then 
going to file them here. I accepted in such cases the applications 
signed by attornej^s and sworn to by attorneys, and I published in 
the Scientific American a letter which I wrote to Munn & Co., setting 
forth why I did it. I should like to leave a copy of this and have 
the letter copied in the record. 

(The letter referred to is as follows:) 

Department of the Interior, 

United States Patent Office, 
Washington, D. C, Septemher 15, JOIJ/. 
Messrs. Munn & Co., 

Washington, D. C. 

Gentle^ien : I am accepting two applications filed by j'-ou as attorneys to-day 
wherein the inventor's nnme to the petition and specification is signed by you 
as attorneys, and the oath is made by a member of your firm. The time for 
filing these applications expires under the convention to-morrow. Therefore 
in filing these applications in the form in which you have presented them you 
are doing all that you can to save your cUent's rights, and in permitting them 
to be filed and giving them a serial number and date of filing of to-day I am 
doing all I can with the same end in view. If this should not prove to be 
effective, the loss must be attributed to the troubled conditions of Europe and 
not laid at your door or that of the office. 

It will be necessary before patents are granted that applications be filed exe- 
cuted by the inventor himself, as provided in section 4888. Whether the appli- 
cations to be filed can be tied to the applications which you are filing to-day 
under the provision of section 4887 is. of course, a matter which only a court 
of last resort can determine. Ex parte Tropenas (90 O. G., 749) to the con- 



8 FILING APPLICATION FOE PATENT. 

trary notwithstanding, I think it is a possible construction of section 4887 that 
its requirements may be satisfied by the filing of applications executed by an 
attorney. 

I hope, however, in case there are a number of applications executed by 
attorneys that Congress may be induced to validate patents granted or to bo 
granted upon proceedings indicated above. 
Respectfully, 

Thomas Ewing, Commisioner. 

Commissioner Ewing. The theory of it was this: I thought that 
if the attorney filed the application and it was within the date set by 
section 4887, and thereupon he forwarded the papers abroad and 
in the course of time got the signature of the inventor himself, and 
then file*d a corrected application. Congress might be induced to 
validate those particular patents. I have kept a list of them, which 
I have here. No patents have been granted and no patents will be 
granted unless Congress authorizes it; but those people were doing 
the best they could, and, the emergency being very great, I adopted 
that course. 

I also did it for one other reason, which I set forth in my letter, 
that I am not entirel}^ clear that section 4887 would demand an 
application by the inventor himself, although section 4888 does, so 
that it might be possible for that to be sustained where it was filed 
within the year of the foreign patent under section 4887, but executed 
by an attorney, and then at a subsequent date before the granting of 
the patent executed by the inventor and a patent granted on the 
inventor's application. I said in this letter which was published 
in the Scientific American that everybody was merely taking his 
chance, that we were doing the best we could, and I would ask 
Congress to validate the patents, and if they chose to do so it would 
be feasible to get patents in that way. I did it mainly to show a 
disposition to help out, and it was that, among other things, that led 
to the German office publishing our country. 

The Chairman. Does this bill do that? 

Commissioner Ewing. They can now come in under that bill and 
put in their applications. 

Mr. Moss. Mr. Commissioner, there is one clause here that cer- 
tainly does look to me defective, and that is section 3 : 

That section 1 of this act sball remain in force until the first day of January, 
nineteen hundred and seventeen. 

Section 2 of the act says: 

That all letters patent and registrations to which the preceding section applies 
shall have the same force and effect as if the applications and fees had been 
filed in accordance with the existing laws. 

Now, what is the object in saying in section 3 that only section 1 
is kept alive until 1917 and not keeping alive section 2, which, it 
seems to me, is a very material thing? 

Commissioner Ewing. Because in section 1 alone is any question of 
time involved. Section 3 says that this nine months' extension shall 
be continued under section 1 until the 1st day of January, 1917. Sec- 
tion 2 merely states in a general way what the effect of the other sec- 
tion shall be. I do not see any special reason in section 2 for saying 
how long it shall remain in force. In fact, it would remain in force 
for the whole life of the patent. 

Mr. Moss. It ought to remain in force as long as the other. 



FILING APPLICATION FOR PATENT. 9 

Commissioner Ewing. It ought to remain in force for the whole 
life of the patent. It does not expire on the 1st of January, 1917, 
because as long as there is a patent in existence granted under this 
act section 2 must remain in force. Otherwise the patent would be 
invalid after 1917. 

Mr. Moss. Is it not usual, though, to say that " this act shall re- 
main in force," without picking out a part of the act? It seems to 
me you want the patent to be validated and remain validated during 
the whole period. If you did not bring up the question of time I 
think your answer would be thoroughly satisfactory, but the question 
of time is brought up by section 3, and then you pick out a certain 
time for section 1 to operate, and we do not laiow what becomes of 
section 2. 

Commissioner Ewing. I had not thought of the point until just 
now, and I started to answer it without, perhaps, fully catching it, 
but I think I am right in my statement that section 2 must remain in 
force as long as there is a patent in existence granted under the act. 

Mr. Kreider. Why not simplify it by having section 3 read, " This 
act shall remain in force," etc., instead of saying " Section 1 of this 
act"? 

Commissioner Ewing. If section 2 does not remain in force longer 
than the 1st of January, what becomes of the patents after that 
period ? 

Mr. Kreider. Well, section 2 is, as it were, auxiliary. 

Mr. Morrison. My suggestion now is to change the form of sec- 
tion 3 to read, " This act shall apply only to applications filed prior 
to January 1, 1917." 

Commissioner Eaving. That would be all right. 

The Chairman. I do not see how section 2 would hurt anything, 
but I do not see for the moment how it strengthens it. 

Commissioner Ewing. Oh, I see what it is. Section 1 gives us 
the right to accept a fee and an application within the nine months' 
extension. Section 1, however, does not say that the patent shall 
date back to the date of the foreign application under section 4887; 
but section 2 says that it shall have the same force and effect as if 
the applications and fees had been filed in accordance with the exist- 
ing laws, which does carry it, under section 4887, back to the date 
of the foreign application. That Avas the reason for that. We did 
not want to haA^e to elaborate section 1 by any reference to section 
4887, which would haA^e been a difficult thing to draw, and therefore 
we put in that section saying that it shall have the same force and 
effect. 

The Chairman. All foreign patents then date from 

Commissioner Eaving. They date from the date of the application. 
That is the international conA-ention, and this is intended to give 
the same benefit for nine months. 

Mr. Callaavay. It would do that, Mr. Commissioner, under exist- 
ing law, unless a^ou changed that. 

Commissioner Eaving. The trouble is that the existing law says, 
" If the application is filed within one year." 

Mr. Callaaa^ay. So you simply changed the time of filing? 

Commissioner Eaving. That is true ; but the phraseology is that the 
commissioner may accept an application or fee Avithin an additional 



10 FILING APPLICATION FOR PATENT. 

nine months. It does not say what the effect of accepting it is, except, 
of course, the patent would be valid. 

Mr. Callaavay. It would not have any effect at all under existing 
law? 

Commissioner Ewing. The patent would be valid, unquestionably, 
under section 1, but whether the patent would go back under the 
international convention 

Mr. Callaway. There is not any question at all about it going 
back, unless your existing law is changed. 

Commissioner Ewing. It is not an existing law; it is an existing 
treaty- or series of treaties. That was the reason for it. We thought 
it was better to have a general expression. Then by changing the 
form of section 3 as suggested by Mr. Morrison we get around any 
discriminations such as Mr. Moss spoke of. 

The Chairman. What was that suggestion? 

Commissioner Ewing. That section 3 read, "That this act shall 
apply only to applications filed prior to the first day of January, 
nineteen hundred and seventeen." 

Mr. Moss. I think that is satisfactory. 

Commissioner Ewing. Now, there is one other thing I want to say 
about this. If this act is going to be passed at all, if it can be passed 
at once it will give considerable time to cover those applications 
that ought to have been filed between the 1st of August and the' 
present time; that is, they will have four months left. But if it 
drags along until the 4th of March there will only be two months 
left, and that is not time enough to communicate with them. So if 
the act is going to be passed, I think it ought to be passed promptly. 

The Chairman. I do not think we shall have any trouble in the 
House if the committee decides in favor. 

Commissioner Ewing. I have here a list of applications in this 
country filed more than 12 months after the foreign date, up to this 
time. There are 205, approximatel}^, applications signed by the 
inventors and filed after the year was up. Then I also have about 60 
that have been signed by attorneys. I will produce those lists any 
time the committee wants them. 

Now, what I want to say about this, in a general way — the reason 
for it, the value of it, and the importance of it — is this : We are con- 
stantly trying to extend our trade, of course ; and at the present time 
it looks as if there were a big opening for the United States in for- 
eign trade. Noav, the privileges we get abroad are a matter of nego- 
tiation, and there is a great body of treaties affecting patents, trade- 
marks, and copyrights. I presume that trade-marks, altogether, are 
the most important part; patents next; and copyrights last. They 
are matters of grave and very far-reaching importance. I think we 
ought to do whatever we can reasonably to show that we are going 
to be just as liberal in meeting the difficulties of this situation as any- 
body else in the w^orld, because that is always a good argument for 
more liberal treatment of us in these treaties. It is not a situation in 
which any trading can be done at all, because we can not do any busi- 
ness ; Ave can not communicate. We simply do the thing as we think it 
ouglit to be done, with the hope that in the end we will get some ad- 
vantage out of it. That is my feeling, although, as I said, when I 



FILING APPLICATION FOE PATENT. 11 

started the bill I thought it was necessary to protect our own citizens' 
rights. 

Mr. Callaway. If it was necessary to protect our own citizens, and 
they granted us that without the bill being passed, certainly we ought 
not to stop now. 

Commissioner Ewing. It would be the decent thing to do. I do not 
want the committee to rest under any mistaken impression about it 
because I stated I did not think it was necessary. 

Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, it may be defeated, but I want to offer 
an amendment to this bill, because I do not think I can vote for it as 
it is. I wish to move that the Avord " is," in the fourth line, be 
stricken out, and that after the word " label," in the fourth line, the 
following words be inserted : " By evidence under oath shall convince 
the Commissioner of Patents that the applicant was." 

My reasons are these : I think one of the great defects in the jDatent 
system and in the patent laws is the amount of delay that arises 
under them. I do not think we ought to add to that delay without 
some substantial foundation for it. Owing to the uncertainty of 
human life and the uncertainty of political appointment, we may 
not always have in this position our present efficient commissioner, 
and I do not believe that a mere statement by a foreigner that he 
would have filed his application if it had not been for the war ought 
to be sufficient. I can not see hoAV he would be prejudiced by being 
required to give evidence under oath of it. It still leaves it within 
the discretion of the commissioner to decide whether that evidence is 
sufficient or not. Those are my reasons for offering that amendment. 
I should like to have it voted on. 

Commissioner Ewing. Under section 4894 applications must be 
acted upon within one year or otherwise are abandoned, unless it be 
shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Patents that such 
delay was unavoidable. Now, we have a body of decisions inter- 
preting that and applying it. If you were to adopt the same lan- 
guage there, it would be easier to construe and apply the act, and I 
think that meets j^our objection. 

Mr. Moss. But in your testimony a while ago you said that the 
mere statement of the foreigner would be sufficient. 

Commissioner Ewing. But if you take this language in you will 
be stiffening the act up; and this particular language has been con- 
strued so that under the practice of the office they always require 
an oath. I should not object to that. 

Mr. Moss. I think the commissioner's suggestion is all right, and 
I withdraw my other amendment and miove that the word "is," in 
the fourth line, page 1, be stricken out and there be inserted after the 
word " label " the words : " shows to the satisfaction of the Commis- 
sioner of Patents that he has been." 

(The motion was agreed to.) 

The Chairman. Let us take up section 3 and decide upon that 
amendment. 

Mr. Morrison. My suggestion was in substance this: That this 
act shall apply only to applications that shall be filed prior to Janu- 
ary 1, 1917. 

The Chairman. " That this act shall not apply to any application 
filed after the 1st day of January, 1917." 



12 FILING APPLICATION FOB PATENT. 

Mr. Morrison. I move the adoption of that as an amendment — as 
a substitute — for section 3. 

(The motion was agreed to.) 

Mr. Morrison. I move the chairman be instructed to reintroduce 
this bill in the amended form just agreed to, to report it favorably, 
and to take such action as he may deem necessary to bring it before 
the House for action. 

(The motion was agreed to.) 

(Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, to 
meet at the call of the chairman.) 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 935 004 3 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 935 004 3 



